The Two-Party Monopoly Offers No Solutions

A Bush or Clinton has been in the White House since 1980, and Bush's cousin, Obama, continues the Bush-Clinton Dynasty that is ushering in the New World Order, a one-world totalitarian government under the United Nations with a global currency and new age religion. Longtime, deeply loyal associates dominate the White House inner sanctum, and veterans of Clinton's presidency hold vital jobs throughout the government. And just like his cousins Bush and Cheney, Obama uses the "war on terror" and politics of fear to push the agenda of the secret international banking cabal, the invisible money power that rules America from behind the scenes.



Barack Obama, pre-positioned by the global elite to succeed George W. Bush, rode into office with a gigantic approval rating to rival that of Bush after 9/11, along with a complete power monopoly over the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches, as well as widespread media support. His administration has expanded the global elite's plan to meltdown the economy and move toward a one-world currency, and has allowed the bankers to continue their unprecedented centralization of power. Obama, who controls nothing and is merely a front man installed in the White House by the puppet masters, naturally has filled his administration with insiders.

Republicans and Democrats serve the interests of the elite, not the people, and have for at least five decades since Kennedy was killed. Republicans and Democrats are two parties set up to give us the illusion of choice and to promote the false left-right paradigm. Political offices (including the Presidency) are bought, paid for, and controlled by the global elite through organizations such as the Federal Reserve, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Royal Institute of International Affairs, and Bilderberg Group. What people don't realize is that Clinton, Bush, and most of those who came before them in the 20th century, did not orchestrate any conspiracies—they were simply puppets being controlled by outside forces.

Political pundits like Rush Limbaugh keep the country bitterly divided among partisan lines, yet partisanship is insignificant in terms of the shadow government agenda. The global elite are now engaged in forming imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, they have gotten the people to expend their energies fighting for questions of no importance rather than fighting to expose the elite's plan to enslave and rule the world.

"A resolution to the economic crisis can only begin with an independent mass movement of the working class that aims to break the political stranglehold of the financial elite over society - the development, to be blunt, of a revolutionary movement." ― Tom Eley, Global Research, February 8, 2009

Historically, the definition of a free person is someone who owns his own labor. Serfs were not free, because they owed their feudal lords (the government of that time) a maximum of one-third of their labor. Nineteenth century slaves were not free, because their owners could expropriate 50% of their labor. Today, no American is a free person. The lowest tax rate (not counting state income, property tax and sales tax) is 15% Social Security tax and 15% federal income tax. The “free American” starts off with a 30% tax rate, the position of a medieval serf. In medieval Europe, when tax rates reached beyond 30%, serfs rebelled and killed their masters. ― Paul Craig Roberts, "Obama’s Attack on the Middle Class," March 31, 2009

Political Dynasties (Romney, Bush, Kennedy) Betray Basic American Values

Families like the Kennedys, Bushes, and Romneys will likely ever seek political power – and the public may well respond with a certain star-struck awe. But hereditary ambition and home-grown royalty run counter to the American Revolution premise ‘that all men are created equal.

April 11, 2012

Christian Science Monitor - Once again, America’s leading political dynasties are holding high the family standard in an election year.

In Massachusetts, another Kennedy is racing toward Congress. This time, it’s Democrat Joseph P. Kennedy III, the grandson of the late Robert F. Kennedy, hoping to fill the vacancy of retiring Rep. Barney Frank.

“I’m very proud of my family’s record of public service to the Commonwealth and the country,” the young Mr. Kennedy has said.

I don’t doubt his desire for service, but he’s also trading on the family name – and fundraising and other powers and privileges that go with it. That’s not what the Founders envisioned for the new republic.

Meanwhile, in Texas and Florida, the Bushes are using their endorsement clout in an attempt to wrap up the messy Republican primary.

It’s time for “the party to get behind” Mitt Romney, former President George H.W. Bush says.

His wife, Barbara – who referred to her son George W. as “the chosen one” before he even became president – has recorded a robocall for Mr. Romney’s campaign. Jeb Bush, another son and a former governor of Florida, has also endorsed Romney.

(A reasonable question: If Romney loses to Obama, will Jeb run in 2016? It’s a job he has said he has wanted since he was a kid.)

The United States has seen its share of political families: the Adamses, at the beginning, and in modern times, the Browns of California; the Cuomos of New York; the Daleys of Chicago; Ron Paul and his son Rand, now a US senator from Kentucky; not to mention Romney and his late governor father, George.

But over the past half century, no two families have been as powerful as the Bushes and Kennedys. They share deep New England roots and a seeming sense of entitlement to the White House.

The Kennedy taste for dynastic prerogative has at times been shameless. Sen. Robert Kennedy challenged a sitting president of his own party and tried to seize the presidential nomination – seeking to recapture his brother John’s lost legacy and rekindle the myth of Camelot. (Parallels can be drawn with the younger Bush president in attempting to finish off his father’s war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.)

Even after the Kennedys suffered two assassinations, the family’s ambition continued to soar. Brother Edward tried (and failed) to unseat his party’s president, Democrat Jimmy Carter. So strong was the family’s belief that the White House belonged to them, that a defeated Teddy petulantly refused to shake hands with President Carter at the 1980 Democratic convention.

The youngest Kennedy brother never made it to the Oval Office, but he helped Barack Obama get there, acting as kingmaker along with his niece Caroline, as they pointedly favored Mr. Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton (from a would-be dynasty).

This practice of hereditary ambition and home-grown royalty betrays a basic premise of the American Revolution, “that all men are created equal.”

Andrew Jackson’s defeat of incumbent John Quincy Adams swept away much of our earlier faith in ruling families, and successive waves of immigrants made a mockery of it.

The Europeans spent centuries, sometimes knee-deep in blood, eliminating czars and kings.

Yet in the past 50 years in America, we have had to ride out allegations of rape, manslaughter, drug abuse, infidelity, and drunkenness in our “royal families,” overlooking all this on the medieval assumption that those with better bloodlines are somehow beyond reproach or the law.

And, like kings of old, today’s royals seek to maintain position and power by plying supporters, friends, and family with gifts, whether they be tax breaks or cabinet posts. At their peril, they forget that stability in any kingdom involved a delicate balance between the crown and nobility, and the people.

The republic could again use the same disdain for pretense employed by an earlier patriot who once said he wished that “wadding of the cannon fired to salute President [John] Adams would hit him in the seat of the pants.”

The progeny of political families will likely ever seek political power – and the public may well respond with a certain star-struck awe and hope for favorable treatment. But in this country, we ought to judge a candidate on merit. That’s what we were raised on.